US must play role in Sudan peacekeeping mission -AnnanFriday 10 February 2006 06:30.Printer-Friendly version Send this article to a friend Destinator :(enter destinator's email address)

From (enter your name)

(enter your email)

Feb 10, 2006 (UNITED NATIONS) — U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he will ask U.S. President George W. Bush for the United States to play a major role in a peacekeeping force in Sudan’s Darfur region.

Rwandan soldiers deploying to the troubled Sudan’s Darfur r as part of an African Union mission, board a US Air Force C-130 heading for El Fasher, Sudan. (AFP).Annan told reporters Thursday that Darfur’s plight is too severe for rich nations, including the United States, to simply fund the mission while third world nations contribute troops _ a practice that is largely the norm for U.N. peacekeeping missions around the world.

"It is not going to be easy for the big and powerful countries with armies to delegate it to third world countries," Annan said. "They will have to play a part if we are going to stop the carnage that we see in Darfur."

Annan said he planned to raise the issue with Bush during a White House meeting on Monday. The United States currently pays about a quarter of the U.N. peacekeeping budget, which topped US$5 billion (A4.18 billion) in 2005, but provides a very small percentage of troops or police.

Annan said the Darfur mission will need a "completely different force." That means highly trained troops with solid logistical support, backed by air power, with the ability to move quickly.

The U.N. mission must send a message to those responsible for the violence "that we have a force that is capable to respond, a force that is everywhere and a force that will be there on time to prevent them from intimidating and killing the innocent civilians," Annan said.

Asked specifically what he would seek from Bush, Annan told reporters: "I will share with him the facts that I have shared with you, the needs that we have and the countries that I think can supply those needs, and that would include the U.S."

On Thursday, the U.N. Security Council authorized planning for the United Nations to take over peacekeeping duties in Darfur from the African Union, whose 7,000 troops have been hampered by shoddy equipment, poor training and lack of funds.

The AU troops have made a difference in the areas where they are stationed, but have been unable to bring lasting peace to Darfur, where an estimated 180,000 people have died in violence since 2003. The United States and several other nations have said genocide occurred in Sudan.

The United States will be reluctant to send its troops because of its commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has also been far more reluctant to contribute troops since 18 U.S. soldiers were killed in clashes with gunmen in 1993 during the peacekeeping mission in Somalia.

U.S. Mission spokesman Richard Grenell would not comment on whether the United States planned to contribute troops.

"The American people have provided an incredible amount of money to support the AU force and an incredible amount of money for the humanitarian response, and the American people have also been very generous to peacekeeping operations and disasters around the world," Grenell said.

U.S. officials in Washington have said the United States envisions combining the AU force in Darfur with the 7,000 U.N. troops monitoring a separate peace agreement between southern rebels and the Sudanese government.

While wealthy nations once provided the bulk of peacekeeping troops, they have done so less frequently in recent years. Instead, they fund the missions, while poor nations like Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and Nigeria provide the troops, in part because they receive much-needed cash for it.

Last month, the top U.N. envoy in Sudan, Jan Pronk, called for a U.N. peacekeeping force of up to 20,000 troops to disarm marauding militias and provide security so over 2 million refugees can return home in Darfur.

Human Rights First sent letters to Bush and Annan on Thursday urging them at their upcoming meeting to support the appointment of a prominent public figure as a U.N. envoy to provide new impetus to find a political solution to the Darfur conflict. Pronk has said he opposes a new envoy.

My son said he was told today that they may be going. He is in 82nd Airborne. Called this evening with the news. Seems followers of the religion of peace are slaughtering Christians on a wholesale basis.

BTW, he could use a few prayers. Messed his back up with a bad landing last week. He can walk, but lots of pain and real stiff.

He should ask the peace loving people of Western Europe to help those poor, hungry Sudanese. I'm sure they'll find plenty of volunteers since it's humanitarian based - unlike the warlike peepul that we 'mericans are. The Eurotrash can now put up, or shut up.

Originally Posted By 4v50:He should ask the peace loving people of Western Europe to help those poor, hungry Sudanese. I'm sure they'll find plenty of volunteers since it's humanitarian based - unlike the warlike peepul that we 'mericans are. The Eurotrash can now put up, or shut up.

+1

WM Employee (teenage black kid): "Yo man, whatchu need?"

ARFCOMER: (with a grin) "Forties and nines bro, forties and nines. Two hundred of each."

Originally Posted By gaweidert:. Called this evening with the news. Seems followers of the religion of peace are slaughtering Christians on a wholesale basis.

Actually, it's Arab Muslims slaughtering Christians and "Black" Muslims, most of whom are considered "heretics" by arab muslims.

Extremist islam isn't just anti-everybody elses religion, but it's fundamentally racist. "Arab" muslims view themselves as the highest race around, because it started there. Also, many forms of African Islam combine elements of local religions, which also make them heretics to the Arabs.

I see you're a graduate of the "jrzy school of interpersonal relations". <img src=/images/smilies/smiley_abused.gif border=0 align=middle> DScottYou should really stick to advice about staying inside the lines on your coloring book.Drjarh

If we follow the Bush doctrine, we must go in and establish "democracy." Otherwise, it'll just be a breeding ground for terrorists.

Flame suit on.

Actually, we should just air-drop Food, medicine, and ammo on the christian Sudanese and let them solve the problem. Sure as hell, if we get involved under the UN we'll probably just take the muslim's side.

Actually, we should just air-drop Food, medicine, and ammo on the christian Sudanese and let them solve the problem. Sure as hell, if we get involved under the UN we'll probably just take the muslim's side..

A couple hundred contractors could take care of this quickly. Or some SF.

The vast majority of the Sudan is either Christian or black Muslims. They both hate the Arabs and the Janjawed (sp). There aren't a lot of Arabs there, and there aren't a lot of people supporting them. The majority of Christians/Muslims hate them in the Sudan. It begs for a SF style response. Good practice for our SF guys. Or a chance to see the viability of PMC's in that environment after their successes in Sierra Leone (until the UN came in and fucked that up).

GW needs to tell him we're kind of busy right now, and to ask someone else. We have bigger things to take care of.

HH

"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." --Ted Nugent

Reportedly, EO was paid US$20 million a year during its 1995 to 1997 stint in Sierra Leone, and routed the RUF forces with a force of less than 300 mercenaries, allowing elections to take place. By contrast, the UN peacekeeping force sent to Sierra Leone after the Revolutionary United Front retook the capital of Freetown consisted of 18,000 soldiers at its height and cost upwards of a billion dollars yearly, while arguably failing to defuse the bloody war for another 3 years. In terms of effectiveness, the UN peacekeeping force allowed the RUF to retake the capital twice while committing atrocities in its wake, and also stood helpless while a military coup led by Colonel Johnny Paul Koroma deposed the democratically elected Kabbah.

Originally Posted By gaweidert:. Called this evening with the news. Seems followers of the religion of peace are slaughtering Christians on a wholesale basis.

Actually, it's Arab Muslims slaughtering Christians and "Black" Muslims, most of whom are considered "heretics" by arab muslims.

Yep.

Extremist islam isn't just anti-everybody elses religion, but it's fundamentally racist. "Arab" muslims view themselves as the highest race around, because it started there. Also, many forms of African Islam combine elements of local religions, which also make them heretics to the Arabs.

No, many of the people who follow extremist Islam are very racist, but the ideals themselves are not racist; I challenge you to show me how Salafism/Wahhabism is racist. Just because White Christians killed Black Christians because they were black doesn't mean that the brand of Christianity followed by the White Christians is inherently racist. The simple fact is that these people are tribal and have always hated eachother, they just were looking for an excuse to kill eachother.

This is also a major problem. Any innovation, or bidd'a as it is called in Islam, is wrong, and sinful. It however does not make one immediately an apostate, unless you are follow ibn Wahhab's doctrine.

Just more of the usual from the UN. If we go to war for what we perceive to be our own strategic interests, we are horrible people. Our military spending and huge defense budgets are awful and signs of our interest in being the world's bully, and our willingness to deploy troops without hard evidence of a direct threat makes us warmongers.

But if there is a problem in a place that holds little or no strategic interest to us, we are expected to run and deploy troops without hard evidence of a direct threat to fix the problem, and indeed we become immoral if we DON'T do it.

Where is Murtha's complaints that are armed forces are too stretched to deploy to the Sudan? Where is Ted Kennedy questioning the accuracy of the UN's intelligence on the Sudanese problem? Where is the media urging restraint and diplomacy to solve the Sudanese problem?

Why is it a deployment of troops overseas without hard evidence of a direct threat in Iraq is bad, but suddenly a deployment of troops overseas without hard evidence of a direct threat in Sudan is somehow moral????

Ah, the bliss of being a liberal. Getting to be on all sides of an issue without the slightest discomfort!

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.

Originally Posted By Spade:If they let us do it under our command by our rules, we could stop the genocide in a month, tops.

a month? how about a couple weeks!

this mission is bullshit. like joker says, where was the un when WE asked for help??? now we're in a balancing act with the roper world and he wants us to go into the sudan and fuck with ANOTHER muzzie country??? you know what he's doing, right? that fuckstick thinks the u.s. is so hated by the muzzie world, sending us into the grinder that is africa won't make all that much difference and he'll be able to keep his cache with his terrorist nation buddies. they'll be directing all their hatred at US and not at him and the un.

Originally Posted By Rudison:The Frogs and the Germans aren't doing anything at the moment...ask them.Jusss a thought.Pete

Actually there are French troops in Afghanistan. My son got do some missions with them last year. He thought that they were first rate. Aren't the Germans are forbiden to send troops out of their country? Something about an incident 60 years ago or so.

Private Military Contractor's (PMCs) did a great job in Angola when hired by the UN. When the UN decided to replace the 100 or so men hired through the PMC with 1,500 UN troops. not only did the situation deteriorate, the cost went un by a factor of 100 or so.

We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free ~ Ronald ReaganNever has so much been owed to so few by so many ~ ChurchillTolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions